'Need to proceed'

As the county’s self-imposed November deadline for closure of its septage dumping facility nears, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors is running out of options for a replacement facility.

John Bowman

As the county’s self-imposed November deadline for closure of its septage dumping facility nears, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors is running out of options for a replacement facility.

On June 11, the deputy director of planning, Greg Plucker, came to the board looking for direction on how to proceed.

For decades, septage haulers have been able to dump their toxic, smelly cargo in an open, unlined pit adjacent to the Siskiyou County Airport north of Montague. Raw septage is known to contain a wide range of contaminants including heavy metals, pharmaceutical waste and other toxic pollutants.

The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board has been demanding that the county develop a plan for proper management and disposal of septage waste since 2003.

In October 2008, the water board sent a letter to the county stating, “At this time, the facility is not under permit from the regional water board. The continued use of this uncontrolled, poorly designed facility presents a huge liability to the county in the event that groundwater contamination occurs.”

Last year, the supervisors increased the dumping fee from 5 cents per gallon to 10 cents per gallon in an attempt to raise additional revenue for a new facility. However, septage haulers self-report their dumping and submit their payments to the county on the honor system. Haulers obtain a permit from the county to use the pond and are then given a key to the gate.

In 2011, the board commissioned a feasibility study to explore its options for a new disposal mechanism. The study identified 11 possible options.

The board has explored several of those options, including partnering with an expansion of the Lake Shastina sewage facility, building a new county facility, building a transfer station or letting haulers take septage to the nearest receiving facility in Anderson.

Several supervisors have also pointed out that the county is not required to provide septage disposal, and suggested the possibility of letting “market forces” determine the best option.

Plucker told the board on Tuesday he believes it’s time to start moving forward with a plan for a new facility and suggested his department issue a Request For Proposals for a new facility design and cost estimates.

He said, “The most feasible long-term solution from a cost standpoint” is to construct a new septage facility. He noted that, since 2011, the county has been considering partnering with the Lake Shastina expansion project. However, he said the permitting deadline has passed and Lake Shastina was forced to move forward without the county.

Plucker said the best course of action now is to work on finding ways to decrease the construction costs of a new facility. He said since dumping fees at a new facility will reflect construction costs, finding ways to decrease those costs are essential in order to provide the service at a competitive rate. The current estimate for the cost of a new facility is $2.2-3 million, far beyond the county’s means.

Supervisor Marcia Armstrong said the majority of her district uses septic tanks and she is afraid that her constituents may just dump their septage out on the ground if they can’t afford increased pumping fees.

Supervisor Michael Kobseff said one of the few septage haulers in the county told him he would shut down his business if he has to take his loads out of the county.Kobseff largely blames the north coast water board for not helping the county find a feasible option.

“They need to figure out whether they want us to do this or not. Every door closes because of their permitting process,” Kobseff said of the regional board. “There’s got to be a willingness on their part to be able to help us solve this problem.”Armstrong agreed and joked, “Lets take some trucks full of poo down to Sacramento.”

Kobseff proposed building an “emergency pond” with or without permitting in order to serve the need until a long-term option can be found.

County administrator Tom Odom strongly advised against any unpermitted facility due to the risk of severe fines or other sanctions by the state.

Supervisor Grace Bennett said, “I think we just need to proceed. We don’t need any more studies. I’m tired of begging for funds and begging people to come help us.”Supervisor Ed Valenzuela reminded the board that septage disposal is not a mandated county service.

Supervisor Brandon Criss suggested looking for sites in the southern part of the county where the Central Valley waterboard has jurisdiction.

Regarding the often-expressed concern over the impact on septage haulers, Valenzuela said, “It’s private enterprise that you’re looking at and trying to take care of. I find it somewhat interesting that you want to take north county septage and move it to Mount Shasta.”

He reminded the other board members of their ongoing conflicts with the south county Integrated Regional Water Management Planning group.

He said one of the main goals of that group is to procure funding to upgrade the Mount Shasta sewage facility. “I haven’t seen this board being very receptive to that issue.”

Ultimately, the board voted 4 to 1 to issue the Request for Proposals for a new facility.

Valenzuela was the only vote against the action. He said he objects because he thinks the county can’t afford another multi-million dollar project.